Method and systems for reducing risk in setting odds for single fixed in-play propositions utilizing real time input

A skill game operator provides real time propositions to a viewing audience, and based on the input received from those propositions, comparable In-Play wagering propositions are able to be generated, and the odds of the In-Play propositions are able to be accurately adjusted based on the actual input received from the same participating audience the skill game operator's responses to the same propositions.

Skip to: Description  ·  Claims  ·  References Cited  · Patent History  ·  Patent History
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION(S)

This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/742,593, filed Oct. 8, 2018 and titled “METHOD AND SYSTEMS FOR REDUCING RISK IN SETTING ODDS FOR SINGLE FIXED IN PLAY PROPOSITIONS UTILIZING REAL TIME INPUT,” which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety for all purposes.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to the field of computer analysis. More specifically, the present invention relates to the field of computer analysis related to gaming.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

With repeal of PASPA, sports betting in the U.S. is projected to be ultimately legalized in up to 33 states in the next ten years, with over $60-100 billion projected to generate in gross gaming revenues from live In-Play or In Running wagers. Live betting already constitutes over 70% of the estimated $175 billion sports betting industry.

For sports betting companies such as consumer facing William Hill, MGM, or live betting data suppliers such as Betradar and BetGenius, the challenges in generating consistent profit margins on wagers while games are in progress are different than the challenges facing a cash skill game provider such as WinView—www.winviewgames.com. With WinView's proposition based legal games of skill, the accuracy of the odds set on “Yes” “No” In-Play propositions produced by WinView's live producers have no effect on WinView's revenues. WinView conducts paid entry contests and tournaments of skill between the entrants and charges a set management fee or “rake” for providing the service. Their fee is the same regardless of the outcome of a single proposition or multiple propositions in the contests of skill.

In traditional legalized pre-game fixed odds “outcome” betting, (“Who will win the first half”?) the bookmaker generally adjusts the odds as the bets are booked, with a goal of balancing its financial risk of being on the wrong side of an unbalanced book. Having all wagers placed on one team would cause potential catastrophic losses if that team won, because unlike in the WinView skill game system, each individual bet is against the house. For traditional pre-game outcome betting, e.g., “who will win?” with points spreads, “over and under” points, bookmakers attempt to balance odds based on the amount of money wagered on the two (or more) options of the wager with the goal of putting the bookmaker in a position where they are indifferent to which side of the wager pays off. This is accomplished by adjusting the odds to attract wagers on the less favored side of the proposition. The following article is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety: https://betting.betfair.com/the-art-of-bookmaking.html as background on how this kind of bookmaking works.

The Problem for In-Play Betting

In live sports betting, unlike WinView, the punter is wagering directly against the house. The more frequently live betting propositions are produced, the more potential profit. Bookmakers presenting live betting must think and work quickly to optimize accuracy in selecting the appropriate situational proposition and then set the accompanying odds to optimize returns immediately and present it to the bettors. This is extremely challenging. Each game is unique, and each moment of the game lends itself to a unique question about “what is going to happen next.” The closer a live proposition is to what the collective viewing audience is thinking about what's going to happen next, the more participation it will generate. Entertaining and entrancing propositions are customized to the immediate situation on the field and are often unique one of a kind. With legal sports books, however, the frequency and relevancy of the live propositions to be presented are restricted by the risk they involve.

With no prior historical data on the exact game situation, and without any knowledge of the betting TV audience's collective wisdom expressed by actual “voting” with their wallets on a proposition as with pre game outcome betting, optimally setting the odds for each unique short-term In-Play proposition under severe time pressure is currently based on the level of sophistication, relevancy, speed and accuracy of the data and sophisticated software systems, combined with subjective judgment of the live bookmakers.

As referenced below, “In Running” betting is the term utilized herein to describe wagers where the wording of the proposition is unchanged after offered, e.g., “Who will win the first quarter?” With each major change in the probabilities created through, for example, a score in a soccer game, the acceptance of new wagers is briefly suspended at the server while the new odds are recalculated and betting on that proposition is reopened with new odds.

With the “In-Play” version of live bookmaking, unlike traditional outcome betting, the permanent odds for each successive proposition must be quickly set without any direct feedback about the betting audience's collective betting response as the game action continues. The fundamental method of risk elimination for non-live outcome bookmaking, as described in the previous paragraph is not available, and the lockout for that proposition comes within a matter of seconds after presentation.

Live In-Play bookmakers, in order to maximize the TV betting audience's collective focus on the “in the moment” game state, generate an In-Play proposition that reflects the unique and generally one-of-a kind game situation—(“Will the Colts score on the next play?”—“Will the ruling on the field be overturned?”) and depending on the sport, set the odds within 5-10 seconds, varying by whether there is, for example, a time out, commercial break, replay, injury or ongoing action as in soccer. Today live book makers utilize a combination of AI driven computer programs utilizing machine learning and neural networks which rely on historic performance data and probabilities, real time analysis of the in progress game's statistics, historical data on the experience with the same or similar proposition, analysis of competitor bookmakers odds, and human experts who evaluate all these sources available and the computer systems' recommendations. Finally, the bookmakers optionally utilize their own judgment to modify or select the recommended odds, within a matter of seconds. One bookmaker's methods are reflective of the industry are described in Appendix A of the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/742,593, an article from the EGM Sports Betting 2017 report referenced above. This method limits not only the frequency, but also the flexibility and creativity in creating live customized propositions by limiting the live betting possibilities to a pre-produced standard list where sufficient historic data exists to yield AI computer generated odds with an acceptable risk factor. The result is fewer, more repetitive generic propositions and the desired maximization of return is not infrequently achieved.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

A real-time, two screen skill game operator like WinView, presents propositions to the viewing audience, and based on the collective predictive input received from those propositions, comparable In-Play sports betting propositions are able to be generated, and the odds of the In-Play betting propositions are able to be adjusted based on the actual reaction of the same audience of potential customers to input received from the skill game operator's propositions to optimize the separate single proposition's odds.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 illustrates a flowchart of a method of utilizing SGO data to optimize SBO propositions according to some embodiments.

FIG. 2 illustrates a diagram of a network of devices involved in the method of utilizing SGO data to optimize SBO propositions according to some embodiments.

FIG. 3 illustrates a block diagram of an exemplary computing device configured for implementing the method of utilizing SGO data to optimize SBO propositions according to some embodiments.

FIG. 4 illustrates a flowchart of a method of utilizing SGO data and artificial intelligence to optimize SBO propositions according to some embodiments.

FIG. 5 illustrates a diagram of reducing risk in setting odds according to some embodiments.

 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

A skill cash game operator offering proposition-based games of skill based on the overall performance over a set of 20-30 propositions in a skill contest like WinView offers is referred to as an “SGO” for Skill Game Operator. A legal sports book offering live betting will be referred to as an “SBO” or Sports Betting Operator.

Real time analytics programs utilizing real time data for individual and team on the on-field performances, combined with massive historical statistics relative to the probability of a specific In-Play betting proposition important to In-Play bookmaking is an important innovation in live fixed-odd bookmaking. For example, for a proposition on the likelihood of the Patriots, playing the Colts at home, to score on a possession within the “Red Zone,” the system can generate odds for each proposition sufficiently accurate enough to substantially reduce financial exposure. But these odds will not be consistently as effective in achieving the ideal of a 50/50 split on the “Yes” or “No” amounts wagered, or optimize the bookmakers return, as unlike outcome betting, the bookmaker's odds can only be set once in a matter of seconds, and bets cannot be accepted until the proposition with these fixed odds are published. In In Running wagers, bookmakers immediately see the response to the odds and as the contest unfolds, can close or lock out the previous proposition and course correct by offering new odds proposed by their Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, constantly maximizing potential return for this segment of live betting. The bookmakers' most fundamental tool in traditional pre-match outcome betting: the ability to utilize actual bets placed on the current odds offered to adjust the odds to balance the book, or to lay off or hedge their portfolio, is not available.

In a hypothetically ideal system, a live sports bookmaker might be able, after utilizing all the expert systems and real-time tools at their disposal, to set the “initial” odds for an In-Play proposition, and present these preliminary odds to the existing betting universe for that proposition. Then, based on the collective response of this actual wagering market, revealing the wisdom of the actual universe of the skilled and unskilled punters, the exact target for the SBO, the bookmaker would feed the actual result data received on how the skill game competitors collectively responded to the originally proffered odds into an AI-based software system to instantly recalculate significantly more accurate, if not optimal odds. These new empirically adjusted odds would then be formally presented to the same betting universe as the actual betting odds, and all of this is accomplished in a timely manner which does not antagonize the betting audience.

Described herein are the methods and systems to optimize InPlay wagering returns utilizing the capabilities of a Skill Game Operator's (SGO) paid entry contests of skill such as WinView's, to provide an In-Play wagering service offered by a Sports Betting Operator (SBO) with the optimum odds setting capability for In-Play wagers, offered simultaneously to the same audience for the televised athletic or other type of contest being offered by both services.

As used herein, propositions are able to be generated for sports events, esports events, athletic events, non-athletic events and occurrences, televised events and occurrences, live events and occurrences and recorded events and occurrences.

Overview

The primary application of the system utilizes the direct cooperation of the “SGO” and the “SBO.” The SGO's live game producers, following its In-Play proposition setting procedures would generate the wording of the contemplated live proposition, arbitrarily setting what their data and experience indicates has a probability of achieving as close as possible to a 50/50% distribution between “Yes” and “No.” Immediately after the proposition is published, the SGO's audience begins to “vote” with their predictions on the “yes” or “no” wagers at the odds that were set in real time by the SGO's audience, for example, “Will the Patriots score on this drive?” If in setting these odds, from their prior data and experience, the SGO's human bookmakers (game producers) determined the true odds were 40% “Yes” and 60% “No,” the odds for one betting unit would be “2.5” for “Yes” and “1.67” for “No.”

Simultaneously, the SBO (with or without the teachings herein) is utilizing their sophisticated AI computer systems dedicated to coming as close as possible to optimizing their financial return on the yes/no option of a proposition using identical wording. But, the most sophisticated real time data tools and software, even utilizing analysis of the unfolding game statistics to get a sense of what the viewing audience thinks the probabilities are, does not come close to the actual audience's behavior these systems are attempting to predict. The only way to predict such complex behavior is to capture the actual response of the identical targeted television audience displaying the “wisdom of crowds.” This wisdom in turn results from the potential betting audience observing and experiencing the same game's unique unfolding facts relevant to the proposition in question, such as the personnel and formations on the field, injuries, wind and weather conditions and momentum and the bias based on the percent of cash players who are fans of one team or the other. The sophisticated AI, neural network-based odds setting system is dedicated to estimating what the viewing audience will do with their money at stake within a 5-second window, and one chance to get it right.

The system described herein enables a procedure where live betting odds are set with real time input from the same betting viewing audiences' actual response to the SGO's prop which is effectively utilized as a test proposition to provide a target audience's response to recast the critical odds for actual In-Play and In Running propositions resulting in significantly improved ability of the bookmaker to optimize bookmaking return.

The Participating SGO Generates Accurate Objective Data on the Betting Audience's View of “Even Odds” for a Specific Live Proposition.

WinView is a company offering games of skill based on the real-time offering of In-Play propositions to TV viewers. The contests qualify as games of skill because the winnings of the cash entry fees are distributed to the winners based on the overall performance in selecting a series of 20-25 “Yes” or “No” answers to predictive statements and risking “points” from a limited supply of points (e.g., 5000) provided to every competitor. On each proposition, players can risk from a choice of 250, 500, or 750 “points” (or other number) based on their view of the probabilities of the proposition as it relates to the odds presented by the WinView game producers. The winners are those entrants who “win” the most net points at the end of a quarter long contest (or other time period such as at the end of a half, inning or period, encompassing 20-25 separate In-Play propositions. Again these skill contests entrants are competing against each other, and the SGO makes its money by charging a management fee. The accuracy of the odds does not affect revenues. In fact a major skill factor making these cash contests legal in 41 states is the competitors' knowledge in recognizing where the odds deviate from what they calculate as the true odds. Nevertheless, the expert live game producers are incentivized and graded by how close each proposition comes to achieving a 50/50% distribution between “Yes” and “No” selections by the participants.

For U.S. sports in the U.S. market these SGO propositions are generally presented during breaks in the action and are left open until the second that play is about to resume with a lock out determined when contestants physically present at the game or receiving the earliest arriving TV signal would begin to gain a competitive advantage. For example, the proposition: “The 56 yd field goal attempt will be made,” offered within 25 seconds after the commercial break would be locked out as the ball is snapped based on the observation of an employee physically present at the game or another system adjusting for the difference in the arrival of a TV signal and the Web-delivered game data. This would provide the participants in both the SGO and SBO offerings approximately 45 seconds or 25 seconds at worst to make and enter their selection.

From the time that proposition is offered, such as at a commercial break until the lockout, the SGO receives continuous real-time data on how each contestant is reacting to the odds set by live game producers through their “Yes” or “No” selections. In a matter of 1-2 seconds, the percentage of the SGO participants divided between “Yes” and “No” is obtained to an accuracy of +/−1-2%. If the In-Play odds presented by the SBO were not required to be set and displayed concurrent with the time of presentation, or the presentation of the same proposition with the SBO betting odds were delayed a non-essential 2 seconds, then the utilization of the empirical reaction of the same target market generated by a skill game two-screen operator such as WinView received in real time by the SBO to present to the punter continually changing odds driven by the selections of the competitors the continually changing odds would be an experience very similar to that of pari mutuel horse racing wagering. This format is not a legal game of skill, not the method by which sports betting odds are set, and is illegal under the laws governing both the SGO and the SBO.

Methods and Systems of an SBO, Utilizing an SGO's Real-Time Response of the Betting Universe, to Increase Frequency and Accuracy in Presenting Live In-Play Propositions

EXAMPLE

1. Skill Game operator's 1st Quarter contest: Colts at Patriots. Colts intercept on Patriots' 19 yd line. TV goes to commercial break. SGO operator such as WinView's producers push new proposition 10 seconds later.

“The Colts will score a touchdown on this possession.”

Odds: “Yes” 2.5“No” 1.7

2. Within 0.5 to 2 seconds the SGO (WinView) receives 5000 responses with 30% “Yes” and 70% “No” (accurate +/−2%) and transmits this information via continuous feed to SBO.

3. SBO receives the WinView proposition as published, feeds it into their AI real time system and pushes the same proposition with the same wording to its sports betting audience within 0.1 seconds with odds left blank. Within 1-2 seconds after receiving the cash skill game players' response to the SGO (WinView's) odds from a projectable sample, the SBO's computer systems generate and display their own odds of 2.8 “Yes” and 1.5 “No” calculated to achieve 50/50%.
4. SBO's customers (for example) actually bet 47% “Yes” and 53% “No” on those adjusted odds.
5. Results of this entire transaction plus specific background including teams, date, weather, universe of bettors, and any other relevant information to this specific proposition are entered into both SGO and SBO's databases of their AI computer systems continually and appropriately adjust and store in memory the data to further improve the accuracy of the system expanding the real world data bases. The system will continually improve the accuracy of the system for this proposition not only for the specific teams and game situation but for the entire system.

The systems and methods utilizing the real time information generated by an SGO such as WinView can also be utilized by a sportsbook presenting In-Play and In Running fixed odds proposition betting to significantly balance risk including those described herein.

The methods and systems of notifying and presenting similar or identical individual live betting propositions to the participants utilizing a web connected application offered in live skill games to users are covered in U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/737,653 filed Sep. 27, 2018, and incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. The capabilities described herein are able to be offered on a single web connected application provided by either the SGO, the SBO, or jointly by both the SGO and the SBO, or by the SBO and a third party with appropriate capability.

In one implementation of this application, the SBO would couple the real-time feed providing the percentage of participant's predictions based on their selections of “Yes” or “No” to a known set of fixed odds from the SGO, which would be incorporated into the software systems utilized to generate the fixed odds the SBO is preparing to offer. This real time data would be incorporated into the real time AI systems using neural network technology and utilized as a factor in setting their odds for the same proposition, presented within seconds of the presentation of the SGO's presentation of the same proposition to the same cohort of bettors watching a sports telecast. Depending on the universe of the SGO users, this might range between 1 and 10 seconds with time lag decreasing in proportion to the participant universe.

In another implementation, the SBO would wait until the level of response from the SGO's player universe reached a statistically significant level of response. It would then calculate using either the SBO's algorithm, the SGO's, or a third-party supplier's, the computation of the true 50-50% odds implied by the actual reaction to the odds presented by their live producers. The SGO would then present the proposition with these odds to sports bettors. In this example, the presentation of the SBO's proposition and odds would lag the SGO's presentation of the proposition by the small amount of time it takes to have a sufficient number of responses to be statistically accurate. Artificial intelligence is able to take into account bettor's reactions to SBO and/or SGO propositions and corresponding odds to develop additional propositions and odds and/or update current propositions and/or odds. For example, if Proposition X receives very little action (e.g., very few selections/bets), then similar propositions may not be offered. In some embodiments, the propositions are grouped or classified (e.g., a group related to passing, a group related to running backs, a group related to fun bets, a group related to color/clothing, and so on). For example, a proposition is offered regarding the color of Tom Brady's socks which is in the color/clothing group, and a small percentage of bettors actually bet on that proposition, then other propositions in the color/clothing group are avoided or are only rarely offered or are offered with much higher odds. In some embodiments, taking into account bettors' reactions includes utilizing video/image analysis to determine facial reactions to the propositions. For example, when a proposition appears, a video capture of users' faces are taken and analyzed, and if it is determined that many users' expressions (e.g., above a threshold) are a frown or a look of disgust (as determined by facial recognition/expression recognition), then that proposition and/or similar propositions are not provided. In some embodiments, the facial expressions and the betting history/results are analyzed in combination by the artificial intelligence. For example, even if many users have a confused expression, if they are still placing wagers, then the artificial intelligence may still determine to provide an additional similar proposition. Any other analysis is able to be performed to determine bettors' reactions to update and/or provide future propositions and/or odds.

In another implementation, a statistically significant panel of selected paid or unpaid viewers could enter their inputs which would be representative of the larger audience watching the game. This “panel” could also be comprised of expert bookmakers or sports bettors whose collective input would be used.

In another implementation the SBO could display with the proposition changing odds driven by either the SGO's live feed or their own feed which incorporates the SGO feed, in a manner similar to the way pari mutuel odds are displayed for horse and dog race wagering as the data changes, the pari mutuel odds change.

A variation of this approach would be used for In Running betting where the proposition's wording is unchanged, but the odds are adjusted periodically by unfolding events and the decrementing game clock. In this incidence the SGO could reoffer the same proposition with new odds to its contest participants. For example, after a score in a soccer game, the same proposition with new odds set by the SGO's producers would be utilized in one or more of the ways addressed above to reset the SBO's odds for the same proposition.

In doing this, the SBO might suspend the acceptance of bets after the score at their server (or any significant odds changing event) while they receive the relevant input from the SGO, reset their odds and inform their bettors whether their bets made before or during the suspension were accepted or rejected by the game server, with software and other systems determining whether advantage has been gained by individuals or cohorts of punters.

As shown in the example, this process will involve computer learning, AI and neural networks, and the systems will have the 20/20 hindsight of seeing the results of the odds reset by the SBO in reliance on the SGO data for different sports and different kinds of propositions. This data is then utilized to continually train and adjust the algorithms using machine learning and neural network technology applying the SGO's feedback mechanism to continually improve accuracy.

The process described herein also addresses separate claims on the collection of the empirical data generated by the SGO on the relationship of the collective reaction to the estimated odds, to the betting response to the recalculated odds utilized and presented by the SBO. The actual betting results from the SBO's proposition are then compared to the response to the odds, then utilized by the SBO and/or the SGO to adjust and perfect the algorithms, both for the specific game in progress and for optimizing the system over time.

An implementation includes an SBO providing a proposition for wagering without odds (e.g., a preview proposition), and also providing the same proposition to the SGO, wherein the SGO receives input in real-time, and based on the input received, provides that information to the SBO who then generates the appropriate odds to be displayed with the previewed proposition. Betting for the SBO proposition may or may not be available until the odds are posted. In a variation the odds provided for the SBO's proposition can be changed before being locked out, or after lockout and then replaced, as is currently being done with live In Running betting where the proposition wording is unchanged, but new odds are presented while the previous odds are locked.

A significant benefit is the ability to offer not only more interesting and attractive propositions tracking the game play, but the ability to offer more custom betting opportunities for each televised game; for example, the very popular propositions with some sense of humor—“If Gronk scores in this quarter his celebratory spin of the football will last more than 8 seconds”—. This system would eliminate the very substantial risk this kind of proposition presents which would have no data to support it.

To summarize, the desired end result of the process is to enable the sports betting operator to make available more frequent, more varied, and more unique propositions to their customers which will increase engagement and participation. At the same time, the process provides the SBO with a real-time system which not only eliminates the risk in offering “one of a kind” in the moment propositions for which insufficient data exists, but also instantly and accurately predicts the actual response to the target betting audience for that proposition. Live bookmakers may have different goals and strategies to maximize their return on a proposition, which may not necessarily be achieving a risk free 50/50 balance of the book on a prop. They might offer “sucker” odds to take advantage of the fact that the system indicates which team is drawing the strongest backing. The AI driven software system can accurately calculate the risk/reward ratio to the bookmaking strategy for each proposition. Conversely, data generated by the SBO would be sent to the SGO production computer systems to enable more controlled, faster predictable odds setting procedures to provide fun and entertainment as well as odds that enable more skilled competitors to prevail.

FIG. 1 illustrates a flowchart of a method of utilizing SGO data to optimize SBO propositions according to some embodiments. In the step 100, an SGO utilizing live producers provides real-time skill game propositions as described herein (e.g., will the next pass be completed—yes/no). The SGO (or SGO's system) receives responses from participants such as out of the first 10,000 participants, 6,000 participants select “yes,” and 4,000 participants select “no.” The collected data is then able to be processed and/or communicated to the SBO. In the step 102, the SBO utilizes the collected data (and/or additional data) to generate and present odds/propositions more reflective of true odds based upon the opinions of a sample universe of potential punters/bettors viewing the same contest. In some embodiments, the process is implemented automatically using AI to provide a proposition or the odds for skill game participants, collect the results from those participants and use that data to automatically generate appropriate odds for the same or similar propositions for the live sports betting participants. In some embodiments, the process occurs in a very short amount of time; sometimes under 1 second, much faster than a human could collect the data, analyze the data and provide an output based on the data. In some embodiments, additional or fewer steps are implemented.

FIG. 2 illustrates a diagram of a network of devices involved in the method of utilizing SGO data to optimize SBO propositions according to some embodiments. An SGO device 200 is utilized to provide SGO propositions and/or receive user input based on the propositions. For example, the SGO device 200 is a game server or a group of servers configured to generate/host/send/control real-time skill game propositions and receive any communications (e.g., selections/responses) from skill game users/participants.

An SBO device 202 is utilized to provide SBO propositions and/or receive user input based on the propositions. For example, the SBO device 202 is a server or a group of servers configured to generate/host/send/control real-time sports betting propositions and receive any communications (e.g., selections/responses) from sports betting users/participants.

The SGO device 200 and the SBO device 202 are able to communicate with each other as well, directly (e.g., peer-to-peer) or over a network 204 (e.g., the Internet, a LAN, a cellular network). The SGO device 200 is able to send information (e.g., input results from real-time propositions) to the SBO device 202 which then utilizes the information to generate odds for sports betting propositions. The SBO device 202 is able to then communicate the odds to casinos and/or gaming applications to receive wagers on the propositions.

In some embodiments, the SGO device 200 and the SBO device 202 are one device.

Devices such as a laptop 206, a mobile phone 208, a computer 210, a dedicated betting terminal 220, or any other web connected capable devices are able to be used to participate in the skill game competitions and/or the sports betting by sending information (e.g., responses) to and receiving information (e.g., propositions) from the SGO device 200 and/or the SBO device 202.

The devices of the network are able to communicate through the network 204 or directly with each other. A user is able to use the computer 210, a television, the mobile phone 208 and/or any other device to perform tasks such as to join competitions, view betting odds, provide selections for propositions, watch events (e.g., sports) and/or any other tasks.

In some embodiments, fewer or additional devices are able to be included in the network of devices. The network of devices is able to include any number of devices. For example, the network of devices is able to include a smart television with an internet connection.

FIG. 3 illustrates a block diagram of an exemplary computing device configured for implementing the method of utilizing SGO data to optimize SBO propositions according to some embodiments. The computing device 300 is able to be used to acquire, store, compute, process, communicate and/or display information. In general, a hardware structure suitable for implementing the computing device 300 includes a network interface 302, a memory 304, a processor 306, I/O device(s) 308, a bus 310 and a storage device 312. The choice of processor is not critical as long as a suitable processor with sufficient speed is chosen. The memory 304 is able to be any conventional computer memory known in the art. The storage device 312 is able to include a hard drive, CDROM, CDRW, DVD, DVDRW, High Definition disc/drive, ultra-HD drive, flash memory card or any other storage device. The computing device 300 is able to include one or more network interfaces 302. An example of a network interface includes a network card connected to an Ethernet or other type of LAN. The I/O device(s) 308 are able to include one or more of the following: keyboard, mouse, monitor, screen, printer, modem, touchscreen, button interface and other devices. SGO/SBO proposition application(s) 330 used to perform the SGO/SBO proposition method are likely to be stored in the storage device 312 and memory 304 and processed as applications are typically processed. More or fewer components shown in FIG. 3 are able to be included in the computing device 300. In some embodiments, SGO/SBO proposition hardware 320 is included. Although the computing device 300 in FIG. 3 includes applications 330 and hardware 320 for the SGO/SBO proposition method, the SGO/SBO proposition method is able to be implemented on a computing device in hardware, firmware, software or any combination thereof. For example, in some embodiments, the SGO/SBO proposition applications 330 are programmed in a memory and executed using a processor. In another example, in some embodiments, the SGO/SBO proposition method is programmed hardware logic including gates specifically designed to implement the SGO/SBO proposition method.

In some embodiments, the SGO/SBO proposition application(s) 330 include several applications and/or modules. In some embodiments, modules include one or more sub-modules as well. In some embodiments, fewer or additional modules are able to be included.

Examples of suitable computing devices include a personal computer, a laptop computer, a computer workstation, a dedicated betting terminal, a server, a mainframe computer, a handheld computer, a personal digital assistant, a cellular/mobile telephone, a smart appliance, a gaming console, a digital camera, a digital camcorder, a camera phone, a smart phone, a portable music player, a tablet computer, a mobile device, a video player, a video disc writer/player (e.g., DVD writer/player, high definition disc writer/player, ultra high-definition disc writer/player), a television, a home entertainment system, an augmented reality device, a virtual reality device, smart jewelry (e.g., smart watch) or any other suitable computing device.

FIG. 4 illustrates a flowchart of a method of utilizing SGO data and artificial intelligence to optimize SBO propositions according to some embodiments. In the step 400, one or more real-time skill game propositions are developed. For example, a set of 20 real-time skill game propositions are generated and organized so that they are easily displayed at a specific time/situation. The real-time skill game propositions are able to be generated manually by a producer or automatically using artificial intelligence. For example, using artificial intelligence, a device acquires event-related information such as the weather, current player statistics, current event information (e.g., in football, the down and distance and time remaining), historical information, and/or any other information. The information is able to be very specific or organized such that cross-references are able to be generated or determined. For example, the data is able to be stored in a manner such that when a quarterback is playing in a game that is going to be very cold, past historical information, including specifically cold-weather games, is able to be located. The device is able to acquire the information from one or multiple sources. The artificial intelligence utilizes structures and neural networks to learn based on additional information (e.g., received daily or weekly). For example, the device using artificial intelligence generates a structure/object using object oriented programming for each player and/or event and collects data for the player/event to develop the structure/object. As additional information is acquired regarding a player and/or event, the structure/object is able to be modified and/or grow. The developed structure/object is able to be utilized in determining a real-time skill game proposition. For example, if the quarterback has thrown 8 consecutive incomplete passes, a real-time skill game proposition could inquire whether the next pass will be completed, or since viewers may be aware of the quarterback's struggles, the real-time skill game proposition would avoid asking a pass question since most users would likely assume that he will not complete the next pass, so a question about running with the football is able to be asked or a more general question about passing could be asked, such as “will the quarterback complete at least one pass on the next drive?”

In the step 402, an SGO provides real-time skill game propositions as described herein (e.g., will the next pass be completed—yes/no). The real-time skill game propositions are presented in any manner such as displayed directly on the user's television or displayed on a mobile device (e.g., cellular/smart phone, tablet, smart watch) or other device such as a laptop computer or personal computer. In some embodiments, a countdown is provided with each real-time skill game proposition. The real-time skill game propositions are able to be presented for a limited amount of time (e.g., 3 or fewer seconds, 5 seconds, 30 seconds or more). In some embodiments, factors may affect how long the real-time skill game propositions are presented, such as delays in receiving a televised/broadcast/Internet signal.

In the step 404, the SGO (or SGO's system) receives responses from participants, such as out of the first 10,000 participants, 6,000 participants select “yes,” and 4,000 participants select “no.” The participants are able to provide their selections through any user interface provided. The user interface is able to be a complex web page providing vast amounts of statistical data in addition to the propositions and buttons to select a response. The user interface is able to be a simple app that is displayed on a mobile phone or smart watch which shows each real-time skill game proposition in conjunction with a “yes” button and a “no” button. Any GUI features are able to be utilized. Any programming language is able to be utilized. In some embodiments, instead of or in addition to yes/no selections, other types of selections are possible such as true/false, multiple choice from (3, 4 or more choices) and/or others.

In the step 406, the collected data is then able to be processed and/or communicated to the SBO. The data is processed to detect for patterns and/or make calculations as well as for any other purposes (e.g., to process the real-time skill game propositions). For example, the percentage of “yes” versus “no” selections is determined which is then used to affect odds of other propositions. As described herein, a formula is able to be used which takes a first set of odds (e.g., initially generated manually by an employee at a sportsbook or utilizing artificial intelligence) and then adjust the first set of odds based on the results of the real-time skill game propositions. In some embodiments, pattern recognition is implemented to determine if any users are cheating or performing the same selection repeatedly. For example, if the selection history of User A shows all “no” selections, then those selections should be ignored when performing the calculations as there does not appear to be a valid and fair attempt at making a selection.

In the step 408, the SBO utilizes the collected/processed data (and/or additional data) to generate and present odds/propositions more reflective of true odds based upon the opinions of a sample universe of potential punters/bettors viewing the same contest. The odds are for the same or similar propositions for the live sports betting participants. For example, if an SGO generates a question: “Will Team X score on its next possession?” an SBO will provide the same or a comparable question/proposition. The odds for the SBO proposition will be affected based on the input received for the SGO question. Furthering the example, the initial odds for the proposition are “yes” 2.5 and “no” 1.7, but based on responses to the SGO question which are 30% “yes” and 70% “no,” the odds for the proposition are changed to “yes” 2.8 and “no” 1.5, so that the betting on the proposition is closer to 50% for either option of the bet. In some embodiments, the process occurs in a very short amount of time; sometimes under 1 second, much faster than a human could collect the data, analyze the data and provide an output based on the data. In some embodiments, additional or fewer steps are implemented.

To use the method of utilizing SGO data to optimize SBO propositions, operators receive data based on skill game propositions and then base sports bet propositions (including odds) on that data. Users are able to participate in the skill game competitions and the sports bet propositions.

In operation, the method of utilizing SGO data to optimize SBO propositions enables that which is impossible without it. In particular, to determine proper, accurate odds for unique situational In-Play propositions, significant real-time data must be collected and analyzed in real time, which is not possible without a computing device, and is significantly improved by utilizing skill game information, where the skill game information is collected from thousands or millions of users across the globe.

Although skill game propositions and In-Play propositions have been described herein, any type of propositions are able to be implemented.

The method, devices and systems described herein are able to implement additional features such as age verification, user location verification (e.g., determining a physical, geographical location of a user/device based on GPS information or other information, and using the geographical location to determine if the laws in that location permit the activity/gaming/service), user home address verification, receiving credit card information, receiving wagering options, providing prizes and/or other winnings, cheating detection, and/or any other features described herein or incorporated by reference herein.

The event for which the propositions are made is able to be: a televised-event, live event, broadcast event, Internet-broadcast event, a single competition, multiple genres of athletic or other types of contests, multiple competitions taking place at the same time, in a single day, week or season, a partial contest, an arbitrary or specific segment of an athletic or other type of contest, sport-based contests, non-sport-based contests, a weekly event, a week-long event, a competitive game show, a television show, a movie, a video, an electronic sports (e-sports) event, card, dice, trivia, math, word, and/or puzzle games, a television-based event, a scheduled competition, a scheduled series of competitions, a sporting event, a real-time skill and chance-based sports prediction games, an event based on a video game, a computer game or electronic game, an entertainment show, a taped event, a game show, a reality show, a news show, a commercial contained in a broadcast, and/or any other events described herein or incorporated by reference herein.

The event is able to be attended by a user and/or an employee with a device to trigger lockout signals or otherwise control when selections are able to be made and/or blocked.

In some embodiments, the devices and/or servers are optimized to implement the odds setting implementations. For example, data that is accessed more frequently is stored on faster access storage (e.g., RAM as opposed to slower storage devices). Furthering the example, the data relevant for the current week is stored on faster access storage, and data from past weeks is stored on slower storage devices. In another example, when a user selects a competition/contest, information related to that competition/contest is moved to local storage for faster access.

For the real-time skill-game propositions, latency issues could possibly give some users an unfair advantage. The latency issues are solved through a system and method to effectively equalize systemic propagation delay variances to a required level dictated by the demands and rules of a particular game, so that a material competitive advantage is not obtained, and the user experience is optimized for all players.

The solution includes first determining how each viewer is receiving their television signal (e.g. via an over the air broadcast in a metropolitan area, via a particular cable system or a particular satellite system, via streaming). All subscribers to a particular service provider or who are receiving an over the air broadcast in a specific metropolitan area will receive the signal at their location at the same time. It is also able to be determined if there is further processing of the signal within the homes, office, bar and others, which could further increase the total length of the propagation delay. Examples would be the use of a DVR, such as TiVo™. A variety of methodologies are able to be utilized to determine the time difference between the reception of the television picture being utilized by the central game production facility where “lock out” signals are generated and each separate group of viewers around the country or around the world.

One approach is to survey the delays encountered through the various delivery systems such as cable, over the air or satellite in various geographic areas and adjust the synchronization of the game control information for all players to optimize the game play experience while defeating cheating enabled by receiving late lock outs to questions.

In another approach, the total viewing population for a telecast is divided into segments or blocks of viewers referred to as “cohorts.” For example, the 2 million inhabitants of the San Francisco Bay Area would be divided into approximately 1 over the air broadcast, 3 satellite independent providers and several cable “head ends” or central broadcast points serving a “cohort.” This information would be gathered at a central game server, and all players registered to play in a particular contest would be assigned to a specific cohort of viewers.

The following are some other methodologies for determining the delays experienced by various cohorts who are able to be used in combination or separately.

In one methodology, upon joining the service and prior to initial game play, subscribers and competitors are required to identify the method by which they receive their television signal and identify the cable or satellite service provider and answer questions relative to whether or not they subscribe to an analog or digital high definition service or utilize a DVR. This information is able to be verified by sending questions to their cellular phones concerning commercials, station breaks and the precise time they are viewed or utilizing other information only seen by members of that cohort.

In another methodology, a routine is established upon first entry into a game where the individual viewer is asked to mark the precise time a predetermined audio or visual event in the television program occurs, such as the initial kickoff, which would establish the deviation of their receipt of their television picture from the television signal utilized by the game producers. While some viewers might attempt to cheat by delaying their input, the earliest entries from the cohorts in this group would be averaged to establish the accurate delta between the receipt of the telecast/stream by the production crew and those in each discrete sub-group of viewers.

In another methodology, the GPS function in the cellular phone is used to determine the physical location of a viewer which is matched to a database of cable lead ends or over the air broadcast stations available to a consumer in that precise location.

In another methodology, employees of the game producer who are members of the subgroups which constitute the competitors/viewers, e.g. a subscriber to Comcast Cable in San Francisco, are utilized by the game service provider. These individuals would provide the current propagation delay information sent to the game server utilizing their identification of a recognizable event they observe on their television set, such as the initial snap of the ball.

In another methodology, audio or video artifacts or information done in cooperation with the television signal provider are inserted which must be immediately responded to by the competitor to verify the source of their television signal or monitored at cooperative viewers' television sets.

In another methodology, the various delays through an automated system linked to the game server, which continuously samples the audio or video track of the underlying satellite, cable or over the air broadcast television signals are established around the country to provide the information of the precise arrival of the underlying television picture.

Utilizing software resident in a game control server, game control data for each set of viewers/competitors of the game in progress who are receiving their television picture or streaming content through the same source are batched together by the game control server, and the appropriate delay is either time stamped on the game “lock out” signals, or is imposed on the entire data stream so that competitors receiving their content slightly behind or ahead of others gain no material competitive advantage. Another method is for the game control server to send all the game control data to all of the viewers/competitors of the game at the same time, and the client software is able to delay the presentation of the game data based on the viewers' cohort.

Utilizing these methodologies to measure the delays in each cohort, each cohort of viewers would have artificial time delays on the game control information imposed by the game control server, which would substantially equalize the receipt of “lock out” data relative to the event triggering the “lock out,” based on the underlying television programming, for example, the snap of the football. Players receiving the television signals or streaming content in advance of the one with the slowest receipt of the television signal or streaming content would receive “lock out” signals slightly delayed or time stamped with a slightly later time as described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,592,546. By providing a correspondingly delayed lock out to a viewer receiving their signal later, a potential advantage is mitigated.

Alternatively, this time equalization from cohort to cohort could, for example, involve artificially delaying the transmission of the game control data stream sent to all competitors' cell phones or other mobile devices by the appropriate amount of seconds, to sufficiently minimize the advantage a player with a few more seconds of television-based (or streaming-based) information would have. For example, by time stamping the “lock out” signal at an earlier event, such as when the team breaks from the huddle, the chance of some cohorts seeing the actual beginning of the play is eliminated and the discrepancy in propagation delay provides little or no advantage.

In some embodiments, the SGO data (e.g., propositions and odds) is provided to an SBO app. In some embodiments, the SGO implements an app which utilizes the SGO data to provide propositions (e.g., real-time skill game and In-Play) and odds through the app. In some embodiments, hot links are provided to partnering apps. In some embodiments, the SGO populates a database with propositions, proposition selections/results, team information, player information, historical data, and/or any other information, and makes the database/information accessible in real-time to licensed bookmakers to generate odds and/or propositions.

FIG. 5 illustrates a diagram of reducing risk in setting odds according to some embodiments. The SGO provides propositions (e.g., yes/no predictions) and/or odds to an audience (e.g., competitors for a real-time game of skill). The audience provides feedback to the SGO such as responses to the propositions based on the specific propositions and/or odds. The SGO provides the feedback/results to an SBO. The SBO provides propositions (e.g., sports betting propositions) and/or odds to the audience. The audience for the SBO propositions is able to be the same audience for the SGO propositions, a different audience, or any combination thereof. The SBO receives the results from the propositions. The results from the SBO propositions are able to be sent to the SGO to update an algorithm for providing the SGO propositions and/or odds. The data provided and received by the SGO, the SBO and the audience is able to be used in any manner by AI, one or more learning algorithms, and/or any other analytical system to optimize the accuracy and efficiency of the betting operation (e.g., such that 50% of the audience selects one side of a proposition, and the other 50% of the audience selects the other side of the proposition).

As shown in the example, this process will involve computer learning, AI and neural networks, and the systems will have the 20/20 hindsight of seeing the results of the odds reset by the SBO in reliance on the SGO data for different sports and different kinds of propositions. This data is then utilized to continually train and adjust the algorithms using machine learning and neural network technology applying the SGO's feedback mechanism to continually improve accuracy.

The process described herein also addresses separate claims on the collection of the empirical data generated by the SGO on the relationship of the collective reaction to the estimated odds, to the betting response to the recalculated odds utilized and presented by the SBO. The actual betting results from the SBO's proposition are then compared to the response to the odds, then utilized by the SBO and/or the SGO to adjust and perfect the algorithms, both for the specific game in progress and for optimizing the system over time.

The present invention has been described in terms of specific embodiments incorporating details to facilitate the understanding of principles of construction and operation of the invention. Such reference herein to specific embodiments and details thereof is not intended to limit the scope of the claims appended hereto. It will be readily apparent to one skilled in the art that other various modifications may be made in the embodiment chosen for illustration without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the claims.

Claims

1. A method programmed in a non-transitory memory of a device for interaction with events comprising:

providing one or more real-time skill game propositions;
receiving selections to the one or more real-time skill game propositions relating to the events;
providing odds for one or more In-Play live betting propositions based on a response to the selections to the one or more real-time skill game propositions; and
equalizing the one or more real-time skill game propositions wherein variances in receipt of the events by participants are utilized for equalizing locking out the participants, wherein equalizing the one or more real-time skill game propositions includes input from a person in physical attendance at a venue corresponding to the events.

2. The method of claim 1 further comprising developing the one or more real-time skill game propositions.

3. The method of claim 2 wherein developing the odds for one or more real-time live betting propositions comprises utilizing artificial intelligence or analytics to automatically acquire real time statistical information from the concurrent real time skill contest.

4. The method of claim 1 wherein providing the one or more real-time skill game propositions comprises displaying the one or more real-time skill game propositions simultaneously with an underlying broadcast of an event.

5. The method of claim 1 wherein receiving the selections to the one or more real-time skill game propositions includes receiving input from end user devices.

6. The method of claim 1 further comprising real-time processing the selections to the one or more real-time skill game propositions.

7. The method of claim 6 wherein processing includes determining percentages of the selections.

8. The method of claim 7 wherein providing the odds for one or more In-Play live betting propositions includes adjusting previously determined odds based on the percentages of the concurrent skill game selections.

9. The method of claim 1 further comprising providing the one or more In-Play betting propositions.

10. The method of claim 1 wherein an In-Play betting proposition is presented initially without the odds, and then after the information related to real-time skill game propositions is received and processed, the odds are presented.

11. The method of claim 1 wherein the one or more real-time skill game propositions are related to a live esports tournament.

12. The method of claim 1 wherein the one or more real-time skill game propositions are related to one or more non-athletic, televised events.

13. The method of claim 1 wherein the one or more real-time skill game propositions are related to one or more occurrences.

14. The method of claim 1 wherein the odds for the one or more In-Play live betting propositions are further based on an expert panel or a subset of viewers of the live event.

15. A system comprising:

a skill game server device configured to provide real-time skill game propositions to a first cohort of participants; and
a real-time server device configured to receive responses related to the real-time skill game propositions from the skill game server device and provide In-Play betting propositions to a second cohort of participants, wherein odds for the In-Play proposition is determined based on the information received by the real-time server device related to the real-time response to the same skill game proposition, wherein the skill game server device and the real-time server device are separate real-time computer systems, wherein the real-time server device is further configured to equalize the one or more real-time skill game propositions wherein variances in receipt of televised events by participants are utilized for equalizing locking out the participants, wherein equalizing the one or more real-time skill game propositions includes input from a person in physical attendance at a venue corresponding to the televised events.

16. The system of claim 15 wherein the skill game server device is further configured for developing the one or more real-time skill game propositions.

17. The system of claim 16 wherein developing the one or more real-time skill game propositions comprises utilizing analytical software including artificial intelligence to automatically acquire statistical information utilized by human game producers to provide propositions and set accompanying odds.

18. The system of claim 17 where a database and real-time data from the competitors' responses to the propositions in the skill games are processed by dedicated computers running programs utilizing, artificial intelligence and machine learning to generate an archival database continually utilized by the live sports betting system to improve performance in odds setting accuracy.

19. The system of claim 15 wherein the real-time server device is further configured for providing the one or more real-time skill game propositions which comprises displaying the one or more real-time skill game propositions simultaneously with an underlying broadcast of an event.

20. The system of claim 15 wherein receiving the selections to the one or more real-time skill game propositions includes receiving input from end user devices.

21. The system of claim 15 wherein the real-time server device is further configured for simultaneous processing of the selections to the one or more real-time skill game propositions.

22. The system of claim 21 wherein processing includes determining the percentages of the alternative selections to the propositions.

23. The system of claim 22 wherein the real-time server device is further configured for providing the odds for one or more In-Play betting propositions including adjusting previously determined odds based on the percentages of the concurrent selections by the skill contest competitors.

24. The system of claim 15 wherein the real-time server device is further configured for providing the same one or more In-Play betting propositions through receipt of real time data from the skill game operator game server.

25. The system of claim 15 wherein an In-Play betting proposition is presented initially without the odds, and then after the information related to real-time skill game propositions is received, the odds are presented.

26. The system of claim 15 wherein the real-time skill game propositions are related to a live esports tournament.

27. The system of claim 15 wherein the real-time skill game propositions are related to one or more non-athletic, televised events.

28. The system of claim 15 wherein the real-time skill game propositions are related to one or more occurrences.

29. The system of claim 15 wherein data generated by the real-time server is sent to the skill game server to enable more controlled, faster and more predictable odds-setting procedures to provide entertainment in addition to skill game odds.

30. The system of claim 15 wherein the odds for the In-Play proposition are further based on an expert panel or a subset of viewers of the live event.

31. A method programmed in a non-transitory memory of a device for interaction with televised events comprising:

providing one or more real-time skill game propositions;
receiving selections to the one or more real-time skill game propositions relating to the televised events; and
providing odds for one or more In-Play live betting propositions based on a response to the selections to the one or more real-time skill game propositions; and
equalizing the one or more real-time skill game propositions wherein variances in receipt of the televised events by participants are utilized for equalizing locking out the participants, wherein equalizing the one or more real-time skill game propositions includes input from a person in physical attendance at a venue corresponding to the televised events.

32. The method of claim 31 further comprising developing the one or more real-time skill game propositions.

33. The method of claim 32 wherein developing the odds for one or more real-time live betting propositions comprises utilizing artificial intelligence or analytics to automatically acquire real time statistical information from the concurrent real time skill contest.

34. The method of claim 31 wherein providing the one or more real-time skill game propositions comprises displaying the one or more real-time skill game propositions simultaneously with an underlying broadcast of an event.

35. The method of claim 31 wherein receiving the selections to the one or more real-time skill game propositions includes receiving input from end user devices.

36. The method of claim 31 further comprising real-time processing the selections to the one or more real-time skill game propositions.

37. The method of claim 36 wherein processing includes determining percentages of the selections.

38. The method of claim 37 wherein providing the odds for one or more In-Play live betting propositions includes adjusting previously determined odds based on the percentages of the concurrent skill game selections.

39. The method of claim 31 further comprising providing the one or more In-Play betting propositions.

40. The method of claim 31 wherein an In-Play betting proposition is presented initially without the odds, and then after the information related to real-time skill game propositions is received and processed, the odds are presented.

41. The method of claim 31 wherein the one or more real-time skill game propositions are related to a live esports tournament.

42. The method of claim 31 wherein the one or more real-time skill game propositions are related to one or more non-athletic, televised events.

43. The method of claim 31 wherein the one or more real-time skill game propositions are related to one or more occurrences.

44. A system for interaction with televised events comprising:

a first server configured to: provide one or more real-time skill game propositions; receive selections to the one or more real-time skill game propositions relating to the events from a plurality of users spread across a country; and trigger a lockout signal to prevent users of the plurality of users from submitting selections; and
a second server configured to: provide odds for one or more In-Play live betting propositions based on a response to the selections to the one or more real-time skill game propositions, wherein the odds for the one or more In-Play betting propositions are calculated within a second based on thousands of the selections to the one or more real-time skill game propositions; and equalize the one or more real-time skill game propositions wherein variances in receipt of the televised events by participants are utilized for equalizing locking out the participants, wherein equalizing the one or more real-time skill game propositions includes input from a person in physical attendance at a venue corresponding to the televised events.
Referenced Cited
U.S. Patent Documents
2831105 April 1958 Parker
3562650 February 1971 Gossard et al.
4141548 February 27, 1979 Everton
4270755 June 2, 1981 Willhide et al.
4386377 May 31, 1983 Hunter, Jr.
4496148 January 29, 1985 Morstain et al.
4521803 June 4, 1985 Gittinger
4592546 June 3, 1986 Fascenda
4816904 March 28, 1989 McKenna et al.
4918603 April 17, 1990 Hughes et al.
4930010 May 29, 1990 MacDonald
5013038 May 7, 1991 Luvenberg
5018736 May 28, 1991 Pearson et al.
5035422 July 30, 1991 Berman
5073931 December 17, 1991 Audebert et al.
5083271 January 21, 1992 Thatcher et al.
5083800 January 28, 1992 Lockton
5119295 June 2, 1992 Kapur
5120076 June 9, 1992 Luxenberg et al.
5213337 May 25, 1993 Sherman
5227874 July 13, 1993 Von Kohorn
5256863 October 26, 1993 Ferguson
5263723 November 23, 1993 Pearson et al.
5283734 February 1, 1994 Von Kohorn
5327485 July 5, 1994 Leaden
5343236 August 30, 1994 Koppe et al.
5343239 August 30, 1994 Lappington et al.
5417424 May 23, 1995 Snowden
5462275 October 31, 1995 Lowe et al.
5479492 December 26, 1995 Hofstee et al.
5488659 January 30, 1996 Millani
5519433 May 21, 1996 Lappington
5530483 June 25, 1996 Cooper
5553120 September 3, 1996 Katz
5566291 October 15, 1996 Boulton et al.
5585975 December 17, 1996 Bliss
5586257 December 17, 1996 Perlman
5589765 December 31, 1996 Ohmart et al.
5594938 January 14, 1997 Engel
5618232 April 8, 1997 Martin
5628684 May 13, 1997 Jean-Etienne
5636920 June 10, 1997 Shur et al.
5638113 June 10, 1997 Lappington
5643088 July 1, 1997 Vaughn et al.
5663757 September 2, 1997 Morales
5759101 June 2, 1998 Won Kohorn
5761606 June 2, 1998 Wolzien
5762552 June 9, 1998 Voung et al.
5764275 June 9, 1998 Lappington et al.
5794210 August 11, 1998 Goldhaber et al.
5805230 September 8, 1998 Staron
5813913 September 29, 1998 Berner et al.
5818438 October 6, 1998 Howe et al.
5828843 October 27, 1998 Grimm
5838774 November 17, 1998 Weiser, Jr.
5838909 November 17, 1998 Roy
5846132 December 8, 1998 Junkin
5848397 December 8, 1998 Marsh et al.
5860862 January 19, 1999 Junkin
5894556 April 13, 1999 Grimm
5916024 June 29, 1999 Von Kohorn
5870683 February 9, 1999 Wells et al.
5970143 October 19, 1999 Schneier et al.
5971854 October 26, 1999 Pearson et al.
5987440 November 16, 1999 O'Neil et al.
6009458 December 28, 1999 Hawkins et al.
6015344 January 18, 2000 Kelly et al.
6016337 January 18, 2000 Pykalisto
6038599 March 14, 2000 Black
6042477 March 28, 2000 Addink
6064449 May 16, 2000 White
6104815 August 15, 2000 Alcorn et al.
6110041 August 29, 2000 Walker et al.
6117013 September 12, 2000 Elba
6126543 October 3, 2000 Friedman
6128660 October 3, 2000 Grimm
6135881 October 24, 2000 Abbott et al.
6154131 November 28, 2000 Jones, II
6174237 January 16, 2001 Stephenson
6182084 January 30, 2001 Cockrell et al.
6193610 February 27, 2001 Junkin
6222642 April 24, 2001 Farrell et al.
6233736 May 15, 2001 Wolzien
6251017 June 26, 2001 Leason et al.
6263447 July 17, 2001 French
6267670 July 31, 2001 Walker
6287199 September 11, 2001 McKeown et al.
6293868 September 25, 2001 Bernard
6312336 November 6, 2001 Handelman et al.
6343320 January 29, 2002 Fairchild
6345297 February 5, 2002 Grimm
6371855 April 16, 2002 Gavriloff
6373462 April 16, 2002 Pan
6411969 June 25, 2002 Tam
6416414 July 9, 2002 Stadelmann
6418298 July 9, 2002 Sonnenfeld
6425828 July 30, 2002 Walker et al.
6434398 August 13, 2002 Inselberg
6446262 September 3, 2002 Malaure et al.
6470180 October 22, 2002 Kotzin et al.
6475090 November 5, 2002 Gregory
6524189 February 25, 2003 Rautila
6527641 March 4, 2003 Sinclair et al.
6530082 March 4, 2003 Del Sesto et al.
6536037 March 18, 2003 Guheen et al.
6578068 June 10, 2003 Bowma-Amuah
6594098 July 15, 2003 Sutardja
6604997 August 12, 2003 Saidakovsky et al.
6610953 August 26, 2003 Tao et al.
6611755 August 26, 2003 Coffee
6648760 November 18, 2003 Nicastro
6659860 December 9, 2003 Yamamoto et al.
6659861 December 9, 2003 Faris
6659872 December 9, 2003 Kaufman et al.
6690661 February 10, 2004 Agarwal et al.
6697869 February 24, 2004 Mallart
6718350 April 6, 2004 Karbowski
6752396 June 22, 2004 Smith
6758754 July 6, 2004 Lavanchy et al.
6758755 July 6, 2004 Kelly et al.
6760595 July 6, 2004 Insellberg
6763377 July 13, 2004 Balknap et al.
6766524 July 20, 2004 Matheny et al.
6774926 August 10, 2004 Ellis et al.
6785561 August 31, 2004 Kim
6801380 October 5, 2004 Saturdja
6806889 October 19, 2004 Malaure et al.
6807675 October 19, 2004 Millard et al.
6811482 November 2, 2004 Letovsky
6811487 November 2, 2004 Sengoku
6816628 November 9, 2004 Sarachik et al.
6817947 November 16, 2004 Tanskanen
6824469 November 30, 2004 Allibhoy et al.
6837789 January 4, 2005 Garahi et al.
6837791 January 4, 2005 McNutt et al.
6840861 January 11, 2005 Jordan et al.
6845389 January 18, 2005 Sen
6846239 January 25, 2005 Washio
6857122 February 15, 2005 Takeda et al.
6863610 March 8, 2005 Vancraeynest
6870720 March 22, 2005 Iwata et al.
6871226 March 22, 2005 Ensley et al.
6873610 March 29, 2005 Noever
6884166 April 26, 2005 Leen et al.
6884172 April 26, 2005 Lloyd et al.
6887159 May 3, 2005 Leen et al.
6888929 May 3, 2005 Saylor
6893347 May 17, 2005 Zilliacus et al.
6898762 May 24, 2005 Ellis et al.
6899628 May 31, 2005 Leen et al.
6903681 June 7, 2005 Faris
6908389 June 21, 2005 Puskala
6942574 September 13, 2005 LeMay et al.
6944228 September 13, 2005 Dakss et al.
6960088 November 1, 2005 Long
6978053 December 20, 2005 Sarachik et al.
7001279 February 21, 2006 Barber et al.
7029394 April 18, 2006 Leen et al.
7035626 April 25, 2006 Luciano, Jr.
7035653 April 25, 2006 Simon et al.
7058592 June 6, 2006 Heckerman et al.
7076434 July 11, 2006 Newman et al.
7085552 August 1, 2006 Buckley
7116310 October 3, 2006 Evans et al.
7117517 October 3, 2006 Milazzo et al.
7120924 October 10, 2006 Katcher et al.
7124410 October 17, 2006 Berg
7125336 October 24, 2006 Anttila et al.
7136871 November 14, 2006 Ozer et al.
7144011 December 5, 2006 Asher et al.
7169050 January 30, 2007 Tyler
7185355 February 27, 2007 Ellis
7187658 March 6, 2007 Koyanagi
7191447 March 13, 2007 Ellis et al.
7192352 March 20, 2007 Walker et al.
7194758 March 20, 2007 Waki et al.
7228349 June 5, 2007 Barone, Jr. et al.
7231630 June 12, 2007 Acott et al.
7233922 June 19, 2007 Asher et al.
7240093 July 3, 2007 Danieli et al.
7244181 July 17, 2007 Wang et al.
7249367 July 24, 2007 Bove, Jr. et al.
7254605 August 7, 2007 Strum
7260782 August 21, 2007 Wallace et al.
RE39818 September 4, 2007 Slifer
7283830 October 16, 2007 Buckley
7288027 October 30, 2007 Overton
7341517 March 11, 2008 Asher et al.
7343617 March 11, 2008 Kartcher et al.
7347781 March 25, 2008 Schultz
7351149 April 1, 2008 Simon et al.
7367042 April 29, 2008 Dakss et al.
7379705 May 27, 2008 Rados et al.
7389144 June 17, 2008 Osorio
7430718 September 30, 2008 Gariepy-Viles
7452273 November 18, 2008 Amaitis et al.
7460037 December 2, 2008 Cattone et al.
7461067 December 2, 2008 Dewing et al.
7502610 March 10, 2009 Maher
7510474 March 31, 2009 Carter, Sr.
7517282 April 14, 2009 Pryor
7543052 June 2, 2009 Cesa Klein
7562134 July 14, 2009 Fingerhut et al.
7602808 October 13, 2009 Ullmann
7610330 October 27, 2009 Quinn
7534169 May 19, 2009 Amaitis et al.
7614944 November 10, 2009 Hughes et al.
7630986 December 8, 2009 Herz et al.
7693781 April 6, 2010 Asher et al.
7699707 April 20, 2010 Bahou
7702723 April 20, 2010 Dyl
7711628 May 4, 2010 Davie et al.
7729286 June 1, 2010 Mishra
7753772 July 13, 2010 Walker
7753789 July 13, 2010 Walker et al.
7780528 August 24, 2010 Hirayama
7828661 November 9, 2010 Fish
7835961 November 16, 2010 Davie et al.
7860993 December 28, 2010 Chintala
7886003 February 8, 2011 Newman
7907211 March 15, 2011 Oostveen et al.
7907598 March 15, 2011 Anisimov
7909332 March 22, 2011 Root
7925756 April 12, 2011 Riddle
7926810 April 19, 2011 Fisher et al.
7937318 May 3, 2011 Davie et al.
7941482 May 10, 2011 Bates
7941804 May 10, 2011 Herington
7951002 May 31, 2011 Brosnan
7976389 July 12, 2011 Cannon et al.
8002618 August 23, 2011 Lockton
8006314 August 23, 2011 Wold
8025565 September 27, 2011 Leen et al.
8028315 September 27, 2011 Barber
8082150 December 20, 2011 Wold
8086445 December 27, 2011 Wold et al.
8086510 December 27, 2011 Amaitis et al.
8092303 January 10, 2012 Amaitis et al.
8092306 January 10, 2012 Root
8105141 January 31, 2012 Leen et al.
8107674 January 31, 2012 Davis et al.
8109827 February 7, 2012 Cahill et al.
8128474 March 6, 2012 Amaitis et al.
8147313 April 3, 2012 Amaitis et al.
8149530 April 3, 2012 Lockton et al.
8155637 April 10, 2012 Fujisawa
8162759 April 24, 2012 Yamaguchi
8176518 May 8, 2012 Junkin et al.
8186682 May 29, 2012 Amaitis et al.
8204808 June 19, 2012 Amaitis et al.
8219617 July 10, 2012 Ashida
8240669 August 14, 2012 Asher et al.
8246048 August 21, 2012 Asher et al.
8267403 September 18, 2012 Fisher et al.
8342924 January 1, 2013 Leen et al.
8342942 January 1, 2013 Amaitis et al.
8353763 January 15, 2013 Amaitis et al.
8376855 February 19, 2013 Lockton et al.
8396001 March 12, 2013 Jung
8397257 March 12, 2013 Barber
8465021 June 18, 2013 Asher et al.
8473393 June 25, 2013 Davie et al.
8474819 July 2, 2013 Asher et al.
8535138 September 17, 2013 Amaitis et al.
8538563 September 17, 2013 Barber
8543487 September 24, 2013 Asher et al.
8555313 October 8, 2013 Newman
8556691 October 15, 2013 Leen et al.
8585490 November 19, 2013 Amaitis et al.
8622798 January 7, 2014 Lockton et al.
8632392 January 21, 2014 Shore et al.
8634943 January 21, 2014 Root
8638517 January 28, 2014 Lockton et al.
8641511 February 4, 2014 Ginsberg et al.
8659848 February 25, 2014 Lockton et al.
8672751 March 18, 2014 Leen et al.
8699168 April 15, 2014 Lockton et al.
8705195 April 22, 2014 Lockton
8708789 April 29, 2014 Asher et al.
8717701 May 6, 2014 Lockton et al.
8727352 May 20, 2014 Amaitis et al.
8734227 May 27, 2014 Leen et al.
8737004 May 27, 2014 Lockton et al.
8738694 May 27, 2014 Huske et al.
8771058 July 8, 2014 Alderucci et al.
8780482 July 15, 2014 Lockton et al.
8805732 August 12, 2014 Davie et al.
8813112 August 19, 2014 Cibula et al.
8814664 August 26, 2014 Amaitis et al.
8817408 August 26, 2014 Lockton et al.
8837072 September 16, 2014 Lockton et al.
8849225 September 30, 2014 Choti
8849255 September 30, 2014 Choti
8858313 October 14, 2014 Selfors
8870639 October 28, 2014 Lockton et al.
8935715 January 13, 2015 Cibula et al.
9056251 June 16, 2015 Lockton
9067143 June 30, 2015 Lockton et al.
9069651 June 30, 2015 Barber
9076303 July 7, 2015 Park
9098883 August 4, 2015 Asher et al.
9111417 August 18, 2015 Leen et al.
9205339 December 8, 2015 Cibula et al.
9233293 January 12, 2016 Lockton
9258601 February 9, 2016 Lockton et al.
9270789 February 23, 2016 Huske et al.
9289692 March 22, 2016 Barber
9306952 April 5, 2016 Burman et al.
9314686 April 19, 2016 Lockton
9314701 April 19, 2016 Lockton et al.
9355518 May 31, 2016 Amaitis et al.
9406189 August 2, 2016 Scott et al.
9430901 August 30, 2016 Amaitis et al.
9457272 October 4, 2016 Lockton et al.
9498724 November 22, 2016 Lockton et al.
9501904 November 22, 2016 Lockton
9504922 November 29, 2016 Lockton et al.
9511287 December 6, 2016 Lockton et al.
9526991 December 27, 2016 Lockton et al.
9536396 January 3, 2017 Amaitis et al.
9556991 January 31, 2017 Furuya
9604140 March 28, 2017 Lockton et al.
9652937 May 16, 2017 Lockton
9662576 May 30, 2017 Lockton et al.
9662577 May 30, 2017 Lockton et al.
9672692 June 6, 2017 Lockton
9687738 June 27, 2017 Lockton et al.
9687739 June 27, 2017 Lockton et al.
9707482 July 18, 2017 Lockton et al.
9716918 July 25, 2017 Lockton et al.
9724603 August 8, 2017 Lockton et al.
9744453 August 29, 2017 Lockton et al.
9805549 October 31, 2017 Asher et al.
9821233 November 21, 2017 Lockton et al.
9878243 January 30, 2018 Lockton et al.
9881337 January 30, 2018 Jaycobs et al.
9901820 February 27, 2018 Lockton et al.
9908053 March 6, 2018 Lockton et al.
9919210 March 20, 2018 Lockton
9919211 March 20, 2018 Lockton et al.
9919221 March 20, 2018 Lockton et al.
9978217 May 22, 2018 Lockton
9993730 June 12, 2018 Lockton et al.
9999834 June 19, 2018 Lockton et al.
10052557 August 21, 2018 Lockton et al.
10089815 October 2, 2018 Asher et al.
10096210 October 9, 2018 Amaitis et al.
10137369 November 27, 2018 Lockton et al.
10150031 December 11, 2018 Lockton et al.
10165339 December 25, 2018 Huske et al.
10186116 January 22, 2019 Lockton
10195526 February 5, 2019 Lockton et al.
10226698 March 12, 2019 Lockton et al.
10226705 March 12, 2019 Lockton et al.
10232270 March 19, 2019 Lockton et al.
10248290 April 2, 2019 Galfond
10279253 May 7, 2019 Lockton
10360767 July 23, 2019 Russell et al.
10410474 September 10, 2019 Lockton
10438451 October 8, 2019 Amaitis
10569175 February 25, 2020 Kosai et al.
10593157 March 17, 2020 Simons
10825294 November 3, 2020 Katz
10937279 March 2, 2021 Workman
11077366 August 3, 2021 Lockton
11082746 August 3, 2021 Lockton
11083965 August 10, 2021 Lockton
11179632 November 23, 2021 Lockton
11185770 November 30, 2021 Lockton
20010004609 June 21, 2001 Walker et al.
20010005670 June 28, 2001 Lahtinen
20010013067 August 9, 2001 Koyanagi
20010013125 August 9, 2001 Kitsukawa et al.
20010020298 September 6, 2001 Rector, Jr. et al.
20010032333 October 18, 2001 Flickinger
20010036272 November 1, 2001 Hirayama
20010036853 November 1, 2001 Thomas
20010044339 November 22, 2001 Cordero
20010054019 December 20, 2001 de Fabrega
20020010789 January 24, 2002 Lord
20020018477 February 14, 2002 Katz
20020026321 February 28, 2002 Faris
20020029381 March 7, 2002 Inselberg
20020035609 March 21, 2002 Lessard
20020037766 March 28, 2002 Muniz
20020069265 June 6, 2002 Bountour
20020042293 April 11, 2002 Ubale et al.
20020046099 April 18, 2002 Frengut et al.
20020054088 May 9, 2002 Tanskanen et al.
20020055385 May 9, 2002 Otsu
20020056089 May 9, 2002 Houston
20020059094 May 16, 2002 Hosea et al.
20020059623 May 16, 2002 Rodriguez et al.
20020069076 June 6, 2002 Faris
20020076084 June 20, 2002 Tian
20020078176 June 20, 2002 Nomura et al.
20020083461 June 27, 2002 Hutcheson
20020091833 July 11, 2002 Grimm
20020094869 July 18, 2002 Harkham
20020095333 July 18, 2002 Jokinen et al.
20020097983 July 25, 2002 Wallace et al.
20020099709 July 25, 2002 Wallace
20020100063 July 25, 2002 Herigstad et al.
20020103696 August 1, 2002 Huang et al.
20020105535 August 8, 2002 Wallace et al.
20020107073 August 8, 2002 Binney
20020108112 August 8, 2002 Wallace et al.
20020108125 August 8, 2002 Joao
20020108127 August 8, 2002 Lew et al.
20020112249 August 15, 2002 Hendricks et al.
20020115488 August 22, 2002 Berry et al.
20020119821 August 29, 2002 Sen
20020120930 August 29, 2002 Yona
20020124247 September 5, 2002 Houghton
20020132614 September 19, 2002 Vanlujit et al.
20020133817 September 19, 2002 Markel
20020133827 September 19, 2002 Newman et al.
20020142843 October 3, 2002 Roelofs
20020144273 October 3, 2002 Reto
20020147049 October 10, 2002 Carter, Sr.
20020157002 October 24, 2002 Messerges et al.
20020157005 October 24, 2002 Brunk
20020159576 October 31, 2002 Adams
20020162031 October 31, 2002 Levin et al.
20020162117 October 31, 2002 Pearson
20020165020 November 7, 2002 Koyama
20020165025 November 7, 2002 Kawahara
20020177483 November 28, 2002 Cannon
20020184624 December 5, 2002 Spencer
20020187825 December 12, 2002 Tracy
20020198050 December 26, 2002 Patchen
20030002638 January 2, 2003 Kaars
20030003997 January 2, 2003 Vuong et al.
20030013528 January 16, 2003 Allibhoy et al.
20030023547 January 30, 2003 France
20030040363 February 27, 2003 Sandberg
20030054885 March 20, 2003 Pinto et al.
20030060247 March 27, 2003 Goldberg et al.
20030066089 April 3, 2003 Anderson
20030069828 April 10, 2003 Blazey et al.
20030070174 April 10, 2003 Solomon
20030078924 April 24, 2003 Liechty et al.
20030086691 May 8, 2003 Yu
20030087652 May 8, 2003 Simon et al.
20030088648 May 8, 2003 Bellaton
20030114224 June 19, 2003 Anttila et al.
20030115152 June 19, 2003 Flaherty
20030125109 July 3, 2003 Green
20030134678 July 17, 2003 Tanaka
20030144017 July 31, 2003 Inselberg
20030154242 August 14, 2003 Hayes et al.
20030165241 September 4, 2003 Fransdonk
20030177167 September 18, 2003 Lafage et al.
20030177504 September 18, 2003 Paulo et al.
20030189668 October 9, 2003 Newman et al.
20030195023 October 16, 2003 Di Cesare
20030195807 October 16, 2003 Maggio
20030208579 November 6, 2003 Brady et al.
20030211856 November 13, 2003 Zilliacus
20030212691 November 13, 2003 Kuntala et al.
20030216185 November 20, 2003 Varley
20030216857 November 20, 2003 Feldman et al.
20030228866 December 11, 2003 Pezeshki
20030233425 December 18, 2003 Lyons et al.
20040005919 January 8, 2004 Walker et al.
20040014524 January 22, 2004 Pearlman
20040015442 January 22, 2004 Hmlinen
20040022366 February 5, 2004 Ferguson et al.
20040025190 February 5, 2004 McCalla
20040056897 March 25, 2004 Ueda
20040060063 March 25, 2004 Russ et al.
20040073915 April 15, 2004 Dureau
20040088729 May 6, 2004 Petrovic et al.
20040093302 May 13, 2004 Baker et al.
20040152454 August 5, 2004 Kauppinen
20040107138 June 3, 2004 Maggio
20040117831 June 17, 2004 Ellis et al.
20040117839 June 17, 2004 Watson et al.
20040125877 July 1, 2004 Chang
20040128319 July 1, 2004 Davis et al.
20040139158 July 15, 2004 Datta
20040139482 July 15, 2004 Hale
20040148638 July 29, 2004 Weisman et al.
20040152517 August 5, 2004 Haedisty
20040152519 August 5, 2004 Wang
20040158855 August 12, 2004 Gu et al.
20040162124 August 19, 2004 Barton
20040166873 August 26, 2004 Simic
20040176162 September 9, 2004 Rothschild
20040178923 September 16, 2004 Kuang
20040183824 September 23, 2004 Benson
20040185881 September 23, 2004 Lee
20040190779 September 30, 2004 Sarachik et al.
20040198495 October 7, 2004 Cisneros et al.
20040201626 October 14, 2004 Lavoie
20040203667 October 14, 2004 Shroder
20040203898 October 14, 2004 Bodin et al.
20040210507 October 21, 2004 Asher et al.
20040215756 October 28, 2004 VanAntwerp
20040216161 October 28, 2004 Barone, Jr. et al.
20040216171 October 28, 2004 Barone, Jr. et al.
20040224750 November 11, 2004 Ai-Ziyoud
20040242321 December 2, 2004 Overton
20040266513 December 30, 2004 Odom
20050005303 January 6, 2005 Barone et al.
20050021942 January 27, 2005 Diehl et al.
20050026699 February 3, 2005 Kinzer et al.
20050028208 February 3, 2005 Ellis
20050043094 February 24, 2005 Nguyen et al.
20050076371 April 7, 2005 Nakamura
20050077997 April 14, 2005 Landram
20050060219 March 17, 2005 Ditering et al.
20050097599 May 5, 2005 Potnick et al.
20050101309 May 12, 2005 Croome
20050113164 May 26, 2005 Buecheler et al.
20050003878 January 6, 2005 Updike
20050131984 June 16, 2005 Hofmann et al.
20050138668 June 23, 2005 Gray et al.
20050144102 June 30, 2005 Johnson
20050155083 July 14, 2005 Oh
20050177861 August 11, 2005 Ma et al.
20050210526 September 22, 2005 Levy et al.
20050216838 September 29, 2005 Graham
20050235043 October 20, 2005 Teodosiu et al.
20050239551 October 27, 2005 Griswold
20050255901 November 17, 2005 Kreutzer
20050256895 November 17, 2005 Dussault
20050266869 December 1, 2005 Jung
20050267969 December 1, 2005 Poikselka et al.
20050273804 December 8, 2005 Preisman
20050283800 December 22, 2005 Ellis et al.
20050288080 December 29, 2005 Lockton et al.
20050288101 December 29, 2005 Lockton et al.
20050288812 December 29, 2005 Cheng
20060020700 January 26, 2006 Qiu
20060025070 February 2, 2006 Kim et al.
20060046810 March 2, 2006 Tabata
20060047772 March 2, 2006 Crutcher
20060053390 March 9, 2006 Gariepy-Viles
20060058103 March 16, 2006 Danieli
20060059161 March 16, 2006 Millett et al.
20060063590 March 23, 2006 Abassi et al.
20060082068 April 20, 2006 Patchen
20060087585 April 27, 2006 Seo
20060089199 April 27, 2006 Jordan et al.
20060094409 May 4, 2006 Inselberg
20060101492 May 11, 2006 Lowcock
20060111168 May 25, 2006 Nguyen
20060135253 June 22, 2006 George et al.
20060148569 July 6, 2006 Beck
20060156371 July 13, 2006 Maetz et al.
20060160597 July 20, 2006 Wright
20060174307 August 3, 2006 Hwang et al.
20060183547 August 17, 2006 McMonigle
20060183548 August 17, 2006 Morris et al.
20060190654 August 24, 2006 Joy
20060205483 September 14, 2006 Meyer et al.
20060205509 September 14, 2006 Hirota
20060205510 September 14, 2006 Lauper
20060217198 September 28, 2006 Johnson
20060236352 October 19, 2006 Scott, III
20060248553 November 2, 2006 Mikkelson et al.
20060248564 November 2, 2006 Zinevitch
20060256865 November 16, 2006 Westerman
20060256868 November 16, 2006 Westerman
20060269120 November 30, 2006 Mehmadi et al.
20060285586 December 21, 2006 Westerman
20070004516 January 4, 2007 Jordan et al.
20070013547 January 18, 2007 Boaz
20070019826 January 25, 2007 Horbach et al.
20070028272 February 1, 2007 Lockton
20070037623 February 15, 2007 Romik
20070054695 March 8, 2007 Huske et al.
20070078009 April 5, 2007 Lockton et al.
20070083920 April 12, 2007 Mizoguchi et al.
20070086465 April 19, 2007 Paila et al.
20070087832 April 19, 2007 Abbott
20070093296 April 26, 2007 Asher
20070101358 May 3, 2007 Ambady
20070106721 May 10, 2007 Schloter
20070107010 May 10, 2007 Jolna et al.
20070129144 June 7, 2007 Katz
20070147870 June 28, 2007 Nagashima et al.
20070162328 July 12, 2007 Reich
20070183744 August 9, 2007 Koizumi
20070197247 August 23, 2007 Inselberg
20070210908 September 13, 2007 Putterman et al.
20070219856 September 20, 2007 Ahmad-Taylor
20070222652 September 27, 2007 Cattone et al.
20070226062 September 27, 2007 Hughes et al.
20070238525 October 11, 2007 Suomela
20070243936 October 18, 2007 Binenstock et al.
20070244570 October 18, 2007 Speiser et al.
20070244585 October 18, 2007 Speiser et al.
20070244749 October 18, 2007 Speiser et al.
20070265089 November 15, 2007 Robarts
20070294410 December 20, 2007 Pandya
20080005037 January 3, 2008 Hammad
20080013927 January 17, 2008 Kelly et al.
20080051201 February 28, 2008 Lore
20080066129 March 13, 2008 Katcher et al.
20080076497 March 27, 2008 Kiskis et al.
20080104630 May 1, 2008 Bruce
20080146337 June 19, 2008 Halonen
20080169605 July 17, 2008 Shuster et al.
20080222672 September 11, 2008 Piesing
20080240681 October 2, 2008 Fukushima
20080248865 October 9, 2008 Tedesco
20080270288 October 30, 2008 Butterly et al.
20080288600 November 20, 2008 Clark
20090011781 January 8, 2009 Merrill et al.
20090094632 April 9, 2009 Newman et al.
20090103892 April 23, 2009 Hirayama
20090186676 July 23, 2009 Amaitis et al.
20090163271 June 25, 2009 George et al.
20090228351 September 10, 2009 Rijsenbrij
20090234674 September 17, 2009 Wurster
20090264188 October 22, 2009 Soukup
20090271512 October 29, 2009 Jorgensen
20090325716 December 31, 2009 Harari
20100099421 April 22, 2010 Patel et al.
20100099471 April 22, 2010 Feeney et al.
20100107194 April 29, 2010 McKissick et al.
20100120503 May 13, 2010 Hoffman et al.
20100137057 June 3, 2010 Fleming
20100203936 August 12, 2010 Levy
20100279764 November 4, 2010 Allen et al.
20100296511 November 25, 2010 Prodan
20110016224 January 20, 2011 Riley
20110053681 March 3, 2011 Goldman
20110065490 March 17, 2011 Lutnick
20110081958 April 7, 2011 Herman
20110116461 May 19, 2011 Holt
20110130197 June 2, 2011 Bythar et al.
20110227287 September 22, 2011 Reabe
20110269548 November 3, 2011 Barclay et al.
20110306428 December 15, 2011 Lockton et al.
20120058808 March 8, 2012 Lockton
20120115585 May 10, 2012 Goldman
20120157178 June 21, 2012 Lockton
20120264496 October 18, 2012 Behrman et al.
20120282995 November 8, 2012 Allen et al.
20120295686 November 22, 2012 Lockton
20130005453 January 3, 2013 Nguyen et al.
20130072271 March 21, 2013 Lockton et al.
20130079081 March 28, 2013 Lockton et al.
20130079092 March 28, 2013 Lockton et al.
20130079093 March 28, 2013 Lockton et al.
20130079135 March 28, 2013 Lockton et al.
20130079150 March 28, 2013 Lockton et al.
20130079151 March 28, 2013 Lockton et al.
20130196774 August 1, 2013 Lockton et al.
20130225285 August 29, 2013 Lockton
20130225299 August 29, 2013 Lockton
20140031134 January 30, 2014 Lockton et al.
20140100011 April 10, 2014 Gingher
20140106832 April 17, 2014 Lockton et al.
20140128139 May 8, 2014 Shuster et al.
20140155130 June 5, 2014 Lockton et al.
20140155134 June 5, 2014 Lockton
20140206446 July 24, 2014 Lockton et al.
20140237025 August 21, 2014 Huske et al.
20140248952 September 4, 2014 Cibula et al.
20140256432 September 11, 2014 Lockton et al.
20140279439 September 18, 2014 Brown
20140287832 September 25, 2014 Lockton et al.
20140309001 October 16, 2014 Root
20140335961 November 13, 2014 Lockton et al.
20140335962 November 13, 2014 Lockton et al.
20140378212 December 25, 2014 Sims
20150011310 January 8, 2015 Lockton et al.
20150024814 January 22, 2015 Root
20150067732 March 5, 2015 Howe et al.
20150148130 May 28, 2015 Cibula et al.
20150238839 August 27, 2015 Lockton
20150238873 August 27, 2015 Arnone et al.
20150258452 September 17, 2015 Lockton et al.
20150356831 December 10, 2015 Osibodu
20160023116 January 28, 2016 Wire
20160045824 February 18, 2016 Lockton et al.
20160049049 February 18, 2016 Lockton
20160054872 February 25, 2016 Cibula et al.
20160082357 March 24, 2016 Lockton
20160121208 May 5, 2016 Lockton et al.
20160134947 May 12, 2016 Huske et al.
20160217653 July 28, 2016 Beyer
20160271501 September 22, 2016 Balsbaugh
20160361647 December 15, 2016 Lockton et al.
20160375362 December 29, 2016 Lockton et al.
20170036110 February 9, 2017 Lockton et al.
20170036117 February 9, 2017 Lockton et al.
20170043259 February 16, 2017 Lockton et al.
20170053498 February 23, 2017 Lockton
20170065891 March 9, 2017 Lockton et al.
20170098348 April 6, 2017 Odom
20170103615 April 13, 2017 Theodospoulos
20170128840 May 11, 2017 Croci
20170221314 August 3, 2017 Lockton
20170225071 August 10, 2017 Lockton et al.
20170225072 August 10, 2017 Lockton et al.
20170232340 August 17, 2017 Lockton
20170243438 August 24, 2017 Merati
20170249801 August 31, 2017 Malek
20170252649 September 7, 2017 Lockton et al.
20170259173 September 14, 2017 Lockton et al.
20170264961 September 14, 2017 Lockton
20170282067 October 5, 2017 Lockton et al.
20170296916 October 19, 2017 Lockton et al.
20170304726 October 26, 2017 Lockton et al.
20170345260 November 30, 2017 Strause
20180025586 January 25, 2018 Lockton
20180071637 March 15, 2018 Baazov
20180104582 April 19, 2018 Lockton et al.
20180104596 April 19, 2018 Lockton et al.
20180117464 May 3, 2018 Lockton et al.
20180140955 May 24, 2018 Lockton et al.
20180154255 June 7, 2018 Lockton
20180169523 June 21, 2018 Lockton et al.
20180190077 July 5, 2018 Hall
20180236359 August 23, 2018 Lockton et al.
20180243652 August 30, 2018 Lockton et al.
20180264360 September 20, 2018 Lockton et al.
20180300988 October 18, 2018 Lockton
20180318710 November 8, 2018 Lockton et al.
20190054375 February 21, 2019 Lockton et al.
20190060750 February 28, 2019 Lockton et al.
20190143225 May 16, 2019 Baazov
20190295382 September 26, 2019 Huke
20190304259 October 3, 2019 Joao
20200111325 April 9, 2020 Lockton
20210043036 February 11, 2021 Katz
20210099759 April 1, 2021 Armstrong
20210136456 May 6, 2021 Srinivasan
20210142620 May 13, 2021 Platis
20210260476 August 26, 2021 Lockton
Foreign Patent Documents
2252074 November 1997 CA
2252021 November 1998 CA
2279069 July 1999 CA
2287617 October 1999 CA
0649102 June 1996 EP
2364485 January 2002 GB
11-46356 February 1999 JP
11-239183 August 1999 JP
2000-165840 June 2000 JP
2000-217094 August 2000 JP
2000-358255 December 2000 JP
2001-28743 January 2001 JP
2000-209563 July 2008 JP
330242 October 1989 NZ
01/039506 May 2001 WO
01/65743 September 2001 WO
02/03698 October 2002 WO
2005064506 July 2005 WO
2006004855 January 2006 WO
2006004856 January 2006 WO
2007002284 January 2007 WO
2007016575 February 2007 WO
2007041667 April 2007 WO
2008027811 March 2008 WO
2008115858 September 2008 WO
Other references
  • Two Way TV Patent and Filing Map www.twowaytv.com/version4/technologies/tech_patents.asp.
  • ‘Ark 4.0 Standard Edition, Technical Overview’ www.twowaytv.com/version4/technologies/tech_ark_professionals.asp.
  • “Understanding the Interactivity Between Television and Mobile commerce”, Robert Davis and David Yung, Communications of the ACM, Jul. 2005, vol. 48, No. 7, pp. 103-105.
  • “Re: Multicast Based Voting System” www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/mbone-eu-op/1997/msg00100html.
  • “IST and Sportal.com: Live on the Internet Sep. 14, 2004 by Clare Spoonheim”, www.isk.co.usk/NEWS/dotcom/ist_sportal.html.
  • “Modeling User Behavior in Networked Games byTristan Henderson and Saleem Bhatti”, www.woodworm.cs.uml.edu/rprice/ep/henderson.
  • “SMS Based Voting and Survey System for Meetings”, www.abbit.be/technology/SMSSURVEY.html.
  • “PurpleAce Launches 3GSM Ringtone Competition”, www.wirelessdevnet.com/news/2005/jan/31/news6html.
  • “On the Perfomance of Protocols for collecting Responses over a Multiple-Access Channel”, Mostafa H. Ammar and George N. Rouskas, IEEE INCOMFORM '91, pp. 1490-1499, vol. 3, IEEE, New York, NY.
  • Merriam-Webster, “Game” definition, <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agme.pg.1.
  • Ducheneaut et al., “The Social Side of Gaming: A Study of Interaction Patterns in a Massively Multiplayer Online Game”, Palo Alto Research Center, Nov. 2004, vol. 6, Issue 4, pp. 360-369.
  • http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/tourn/tourn-03.html.
  • Pinnacle,“The basics of reverse line movement,” Jan. 19, 2018, Retrieved on Jan. 22, 2020 , http://www.pinnacle.com/en/betting-articles educational/basics-of-reverse-line-movement/QAH26XGGQQS7M3GD.
  • Gambling Commission,“Virtual currencies, eSports and social casino gaming-position paper,” Mar. 2017, Retrieved on Jan. 22, 2020, http://gamblingcomission.gov.uk/PDF/Virtual-currencies-eSports-and -social-casino-gaming.pdf.
  • Sipko et al.,“Machine learning for the prediction of professional tennis matches,” In: MEng computing-final year project, Imperial College London, Jun. 15, 2015, http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/teaching/distinguished-projects/2015/rn.sipko.pdf.
  • WinView Game Producer, “Live TV Sports Play Along App WinView Games Announces Sponsorship With PepsiCo to Start This Holiday Season,” In Winview Games. Dec. 21, 2016, Retrieved on Jan. 21, 2020 from , http://www. winviewgames./press-release/live-tv-sports-play-along-app-winview-games-announces-sponsorship-pepsico-start-holiday-season/.
  • The International Search Report and the Written Opinion for the PCT/US2019/054859 dated Feb. 4, 2020.
  • The International Preliminary Report dated Apr. 22, 2021 for the application PCT/US2019/054859.
Patent History
Patent number: 11308765
Type: Grant
Filed: Feb 14, 2019
Date of Patent: Apr 19, 2022
Patent Publication Number: 20200111325
Assignee: Winview, Inc. (Redwood City, CA)
Inventors: David B. Lockton (Redwood City, CA), Kathy A. Lockton (Redwood City, CA)
Primary Examiner: William H McCulloch, Jr.
Application Number: 16/276,292
Classifications
Current U.S. Class: Access Or Authorization (e.g., Game Selection, Security, Etc.) (463/29)
International Classification: G07F 17/32 (20060101);